Subsidised Courses

golfwallah

A small point but both Corballis & Elm Green are municipal courses, relying on massive annual subsidies from Fingal County Council, which has had its central government funding reduced by just over 10% because of non-payment of Household Charges. See Irish Times article:

Fingal County Council relies on the Local Government Fund for less than 9 per cent of its budget. It allocation of €20.4 million is being reduced by €2.2 million or 10.25 per cent. That services will suffer is inevitable, county manager David O’Connor said. “Needless to say, this is extremely bad news for this local authority, with many of our income sources continuing to be under pressure.”

Just where the cuts will fall has yet to be decided. I guess it will be down to how far up the priority list golf courses come, when stacked up against water, sewerage, roads, public lighting, libraries, parks, etc.

ryaner777

Hi Golfwallah,

I've had a quick search on boards for some more info and it seems you have a real issue with these clubs receiving any money at all from fingal council.

You're prob a member of a private course but unfortunately my financial situation doesn't give me that luxury. If they didn't subsidise the membership fees, people like me just wouldn't be able to join a local club and I'd be forced to take up the dreaded distance membership.

Please make your motives clear when posting info and don't try and frighten people away from joining particular golf clubs.

golfwallah

ryaner777 wrote: »

Cheers golfwallah. Do you know of anywhere you could see the books from corballis or elm green before I make a decision ?

The accounts for these two courses are part and parcel of of the overall accounts for Fingal County Council but it is not possible to view the dis-aggregrated figures down to the level of detail of individual golf course.

That said, some information on the losses involved is available in the public domain, such as those on Councillor Kieran Dennison's site, click here for details.

And, yes, I do have an interest as a Fingal taxpayer and member of one of the Fingal members' owned golf clubs.

I have no problem with clubs having to compete with other courses, so long as there is a level playing pitch, where losses are not being financed through council borrowings and cuts to other essential services.

I also think that clubs should have a much broader range of product offerings and prices to suit a lot more peoples' pockets ...... but I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out over the coming months.:)

ryaner777

So which bothers you more ? That your tax money is spent to provide services to the local community or your private members golf club cannot compete financially with elm green ?

Elm Green is not there to compete with your club, it's there to provide a service to people who wouldn't normally get to join a golf club. If the likes elm green, sillogue & corbalis didn't exist then I wouldn't be able to afford join a club.

If it’s the first one than you are being ridiculous, local councils all over this country have been providing leisure facilities to their constituents since the foundation of the state, some people play GAA & some people play soccer (Pitches and training facilities are all over fingal and no club with private facilities complains about this) some people swim or go to the gym (Ballymun Leisure Centre for example. I’ve never heard of a member of any other gym giving out about the facilities provided by them) and some people just like walking their dogs in a nice park and all these facilities have to be provided in some way by the local council.
Golf is another of these leisure activities that some people really enjoy doing and the majority of private members clubs are way out of the normal mans budget. This might change in the future but for now and when elm green was established this was the case.
I’m sure you’ll be happy to know your snobbery has convinced me I’m joining the right club for me and the €700 I’ll pay will go towards something else fingal county council can spend their money on. Local services are there for everyone to be enjoyed, that might be me or you or your children.

This thread has gone way off topic and I've got all the info I need to make my decision.

Feel free to close mods if needed

golfwallah

As already stated, I’ve no problem with competition or, for that matter, a reasonable level of subsidization of leisure facilities. And there are alternative ways of providing golf at more affordable prices, if only the council took the trouble to find them. Councils have to look at solutions to their spending problems other than just throwing money at them – particularly when borrowed as part of the country’s bailout programme.

This is why I have an issue with Fingal County Council (FCC), year after year, pouring truck loads of public money into inefficiently run golf courses – not snobbery, as you suggest.

Member owned clubs can’t borrow their way out to avoid issues. They have to face up to problems themselves and find solutions through cutting costs and the fees they charge. And while FCC continue to lose money, I read in their estimates for this year that they were allocating another €100,000 to capital spending on their courses, as well as opening yet another new course.

Extract from FCC Budget 2012 (Page 51):

The Parks Division continues to maintain public Golf courses at Elm Green, Castleknock, Dublin 15, Corballis, Donabate, and Malahide Demesne. In 2011 development of a par 3 course commenced in St. Catherine’s Park, Lucan and it is intended to open this course to the public in 2012. A provision of €100,000 has also been made for transfer to capital in Budget 2012 to fund various outstanding capital Balances.

Only now, bit by bit the chickens are coming home to roost in the form of cuts in the Local Government Fund allocation.

All I’m saying is that Councillors will have to face choices and decisions on cuts at Council meetings in September and October – and there are higher priorities than propping up badly managed golf courses.

Article in Fingal Independent, quoting the County Manager:

We are currently facing a €2m cut in our Local Government Fund allocation for 2012. This cut will affect our frontline services and we are therefore appealing once again to all householders to pay the household charge so that its impact can be minimised.

m r c

Hi ryaner don't take what I'm going to say like something you have to defend, nor is this a personal dig.
I did not know that as a taxpayers we payed for public owned golf courses in this country. I am a member of a private club in the west of Ireland(i had assumed they were all that way) and I don't have any airs about me it's just golf not some kind of social standing but OMG I am dumbstruck at the idea of the taxpayer leaving my sub any cheaper. This kip of a country can't be paying for golf on top of everything else that's mad.
Honest question how many courses are municipal in Ireland? Does anyone know I'd be interested to know. I thought that was an American thing. Shocked that's all. Btw I'm not making out like €700 is cheap either. It's hard to come by nowadays. There is a 9 hole course beside me that's €150 first year €180 second and €250 subsequent years with €300 for couples. You don't have to be spending thousands to get respect off me.

MP62

m r c wrote: »

Hi ryaner don't take what I'm going to say like something you have to defend, nor is this a personal dig.
I did not know that as a taxpayers we payed for public owned golf courses in this country. I am a member of a private club in the west of Ireland(i had assumed they were all that way) and I don't have any airs about me it's just golf not some kind of social standing but OMG I am dumbstruck at the idea of the taxpayer leaving my sub any cheaper. This kip of a country can't be paying for golf on top of everything else that's mad.
Honest question how many courses are municipal in Ireland? Does anyone know I'd be interested to know. I thought that was an American thing. Shocked that's all. Btw I'm not making out like €700 is cheap either. It's hard to come by nowadays. There is a 9 hole course beside me that's €150 first year €180 second and €250 subsequent years with €300 for couples. You don't have to be spending thousands to get respect off me.

Yea let's remove social welfare altogether.

m r c

MP62 wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

Hi ryaner don't take what I'm going to say like something you have to defend, nor is this a personal dig.
I did not know that as a taxpayers we payed for public owned golf courses in this country. I am a member of a private club in the west of Ireland(i had assumed they were all that way) and I don't have any airs about me it's just golf not some kind of social standing but OMG I am dumbstruck at the idea of the taxpayer leaving my sub any cheaper. This kip of a country can't be paying for golf on top of everything else that's mad.
Honest question how many courses are municipal in Ireland? Does anyone know I'd be interested to know. I thought that was an American thing. Shocked that's all. Btw I'm not making out like €700 is cheap either. It's hard to come by nowadays. There is a 9 hole course beside me that's €150 first year €180 second and €250 subsequent years with €300 for couples. You don't have to be spending thousands to get respect off me.

Yea let's remove social welfare altogether.[/Quote

Of course because golf would be free then right?

MP62

m r c wrote: »

MP62 wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

Hi ryaner don't take what I'm going to say like something you have to defend, nor is this a personal dig.
I did not know that as a taxpayers we payed for public owned golf courses in this country. I am a member of a private club in the west of Ireland(i had assumed they were all that way) and I don't have any airs about me it's just golf not some kind of social standing but OMG I am dumbstruck at the idea of the taxpayer leaving my sub any cheaper. This kip of a country can't be paying for golf on top of everything else that's mad.
Honest question how many courses are municipal in Ireland? Does anyone know I'd be interested to know. I thought that was an American thing. Shocked that's all. Btw I'm not making out like €700 is cheap either. It's hard to come by nowadays. There is a 9 hole course beside me that's €150 first year €180 second and €250 subsequent years with €300 for couples. You don't have to be spending thousands to get respect off me.

Yea let's remove social welfare altogether.[/Quote

Of course because golf would be free then right?

Jump to conclusions much?.

golfwallah

m r c wrote: »

Hi ryaner don't take what I'm going to say like something you have to defend, nor is this a personal dig.
I did not know that as a taxpayers we payed for public owned golf courses in this country. I am a member of a private club in the west of Ireland(i had assumed they were all that way) and I don't have any airs about me it's just golf not some kind of social standing but OMG I am dumbstruck at the idea of the taxpayer leaving my sub any cheaper. This kip of a country can't be paying for golf on top of everything else that's mad.
Honest question how many courses are municipal in Ireland? Does anyone know I'd be interested to know. I thought that was an American thing. Shocked that's all. Btw I'm not making out like €700 is cheap either. It's hard to come by nowadays. There is a 9 hole course beside me that's €150 first year €180 second and €250 subsequent years with €300 for couples. You don't have to be spending thousands to get respect off me.

It’s not surprising that people don’t know about the massive losses being incurred by council golf courses. The information is hard to get, unless you go to the trouble of digging out whatever little is publicly available. Published Council budgets and accounts bury this information under the broad heading “Recreation & Amenity” .... but the information is there – just not published and only comes out in response to councillor questions.

And, I’m informed by a councillor, that this limited degree of “transparency” in the accounts has been agreed, you guessed it, between the county managers and the Department of the Environment.

But to answer your question, AFAIK and excluding pitch & putt, there are 11 municipal golf courses in the country (if anyone knows of any more, maybe they could let us know):

4 in Fingal, North Dublin – 18 hole courses at Elm Green and Corballis. Par 3s in Malahide Demesne and St. Catherine’s Park, Lucan.

1 in Dublin South County – Grange Castle.

1 in Dublin City Council – Sillogue Park.

2 in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown – 9 hole courses at Stepaside and Marlay Park.

1 in Cork – 18-hole Course at Mahon.

1 in Waterford – 18 hole at Williamstown.

1 in Limerick – 18 hole at Rathbane.

The Fingal Courses lose frightening amounts of money and are subsidized by the Taxpayer – don’t know about the others.

Meanwhile, Paul McSweeney, CEO of the Local Government Management Agency, is quoted in the Irish Examiner http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mcsweeney-pay-charge-or-street-lights-could-be-turned-off-563182.html as saying

Street lights may need to be switched off and community-run sports clubs will no longer exist if people don't comply with the household charge.

This is not sour grapes or snobbery – this is the way things are in Ireland today – nothing personal, ryaner, but I can’t see council golf courses being subsidized at such unacceptably high levels for much longer.

FixdePitchmark

Sorry this is off topic (Greebo), we need a new thread, as this is very interesting the week the Olympics ended.

The biggest loss of money to the Irish people from golf courses were the golf courses that ended up in NAMA, does anybody want to even guess how much that was, I don’t. But, spilt milk and all that.

Most private golf courses are funded / supported by the Irish people by means of a tax exemption. As are most sporting clubs.

The fact that one of the courses was profitable is a remarkable achievement; I’d imagine Corballis will return to profitability again. The losses related to reinvestment in the course in 2007. But, I would not like to concentrate on one course, the general principle is my point.

There is no excuses for a public course being run inefficiently, but it is not possible for all public facilities to be profitable – public health provision, libraries, schooling, Garda, leisure facilities, playgrounds, welfare provision. Sewage and civil works are provided by general taxation also – 1000s of other examples.

The benefit to society and saving associated with leisure facilities are not easily calculable, Michael Ring (TD) says it is more valuable to society than health, Cllr. Kieran Denison look at balance sheets. Not the long term effects of removing them.

There are hundreds of private sector areas that get funding and not always profitable. Agricultural, Arts, Renewable Energy, Sport, Education, Health.

The assumption that all areas of a functioning society must be profitable is dangerously flawed. Britain went down that route to an extreme and is still trying to recover from the total breakdown in society.

Meanwhile, Britain is reinvesting in sport, not for profit, for the unquantifiable benefit it provides to the country. Areas of benefit are public health, crime reduction, national pride.

It would be extremely short sighted to target public golf facilities by the GUI or private golf clubs or the golf community. They act as feeders into private golf club and do more for the promotion of the game outside the established golf community.

Again, can’t run them unprofessionally and wastefully, but the benefits to the golf community, shops, clubs, society are not easily represented on a balance sheet. Remove leisure facilities at your pearl is my warning.

m r c

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Sorry this is off topic (Greebo), we need a new thread, as this is very interesting the week the Olympics ended.

The biggest loss of money to the Irish people from golf courses were the golf courses that ended up in NAMA, does anybody want to even guess how much that was, I don’t. But, spilt milk and all that.

Most private golf courses are funded / supported by the Irish people by means of a tax exemption. As are most sporting clubs.

The fact that one of the courses was profitable is a remarkable achievement; I’d imagine Corballis will return to profitability again. The losses related to reinvestment in the course in 2007. But, I would not like to concentrate on one course, the general principle is my point.

There is no excuses for a public course being run inefficiently, but it is not possible forall public facilities to be profitable – public health provision, libraries,schooling, Garda, leisure facilities, playgrounds, welfare provision. Sewage andcivil works are provided by general taxation also – 1000s of other examples.

The benefitto society and saving associated with leisure facilities are not easilycalculable Michael Ring TD (TD) saysit is more valuable to society than health, Cllr. Kieran Denison look at balance sheets. Not the long term effects of removing them.

There are hundreds of private sector areas that get funding and not always profitable. Agricultural, Arts, Renewable Energy, Sport, Education, Health.

The assumption that all areas of a functioning society must be profitable is dangerously flawed. Britain went down that route to an extreme and is still trying to recover from the total breakdown in society.

Meanwhile, Britain is reinvesting in sport, not for profit, for the unquantifiable benefit it provides to the country. Areas of benefit are public health, crime reduction, national pride.

It would be extremely short sighted to target public golf facilities by the GUI or private golf clubs or the golf community. They act as feeder into private golf club anddo more for the promotion of the game outside the established golf community.

Again, can’t run them unprofessionally and wastefully, but the benefits to the golf community,shops, clubs, society are not easily represented on a balance sheet. Remove leisure facilities at your pearl is my warning.

I'm sorry for the off topic too greebo.
You are right fixedpitchmark, I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. My shock was to the idea that public money is going into golf courses at all. I wouldn't draw the Nama comparison though. There may be money going into them but at least they were initially private ventures that received the government support after the set up of Nama. And I understand why at least, though I'm not happy about it mind.

FixdePitchmark

But on NAMA.

The total loss from golf courses is in the 100s of millions . The Irish people are covering this. it makes these figures laughable.

Anyway, sorry don't want to get into the NAMA thing - we need a bit of a wider perspective on public facilities. If a football pitch /GAA pitch keeps 5 lads out of prison it has paid for itself. And sorry not trying to be alarmist or glib, but I have seen this in action.

m r c

The way life is structured if a private business or individual goes bang it's supposed to be wound up but for some reason it's different in Ireland. I think the money going into the Nama golf is off the scale wrong. All that said I still see a difference in municipal courses. I consider myself your typical joe soap and I had no idea this was going on I'd say I'm not alone either. In my opinion it's newsworthy.

GreeBo

Moved from Playing Rights thread.
Start your own one fellas.

golfwallah

Councils have been overspending and this includes loss making public golf courses.

It’s not a question of extremes – profitability or closure – but of balance as regards what is an acceptable level of subsidy, IMO. The time has come to cut inefficiencies, prioritise, reduce the size of the losses, etc.

Ireland is broke, continuing to overspend and adding to mounting debt that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with.

Surely, the answer can’t be to continue to subsidise inefficiency and, in so doing, make it harder for member clubs, dependent on voluntary effort to survive.

In saying that, there is a demand for more reasonably priced golf, so member clubs also have responsibilities. Solutions are required to make the game affordable and use underutilised capacity. Some clubs are stepping up to the plate, by reducing costs and prices, but there is a long way to go in making golf a more attractive proposition to potential customers, whose income has reduced considerably from Celtic Tiger days.

The response of member clubs and the problem of NAMA below cost selling were well discussed in another thread. But recent public statements from Councils, facing even more unpopular service cuts, indicate they will soon start looking for savings that affect the fewest number of their constituents – such as golf course subsidies.

So, what’s the answer – just carry on, as before, ignoring golf course losses, hoping everything will be allright on the night? Or are Councils capable of cutting inefficiencies before they start cutting service levels?

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah wrote: »

Councils have been overspending and this includes loss making public golf courses.

It’s not a question of extremes – profitability or closure – but of balance as regards what is an acceptable level of subsidy, IMO. The time has come to cut inefficiencies, prioritise, reduce the size of the losses, etc.

Ireland is broke, continuing to overspend and adding to mounting debt that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with.

Surely, the answer can’t be to continue to subsidise inefficiency and, in so doing, make it harder for member clubs, dependent on voluntary effort to survive.

In saying that, there is a demand for more reasonably priced golf, so member clubs also have responsibilities. Solutions are required to make the game affordable and use underutilised capacity. Some clubs are stepping up to the plate, by reducing costs and prices, but there is a long way to go in making golf a more attractive proposition to potential customers, whose income has reduced considerably from Celtic Tiger days.

The response of member clubs and the problem of NAMA below cost selling were well discussed in another thread. But recent public statements from Councils, facing even more unpopular service cuts, indicate they will soon start looking for savings that affect the fewest number of their constituents – such as golf course subsidies.

So, what’s the answer – just carry on, as before, ignoring golf course losses, hoping everything will be allright on the night? Or are Councils capable of cutting inefficiencies before they start cutting service levels?

Do you think the tax exemption for golf courses should be removed ? This could help pay for public services, close inefficient private courses. More people would use the public facility and this would result in loss making public facilities becoming profitable.

It just looks like, people with private interests, are trying to close public facilities for the benifit of private indivduals. Seems like a rerun of history.

m r c

I found out about subsidised golf courses on this site today. After thinking about it a little more heres what I think about it.
Subsidised golf courses are different to a public park because you don't pay to be a member to use the park. The taxpayers money that goes into the park is free for all to use as it should be. But the municipal golf course isn't free for all to use it goes to make the membership sub cheaper for a certain few to enjoy. That smacks a bit to me. Am I missing something?

Sandwlch

m r c wrote: »

I found out about subsidised golf courses on this site today. After thinking about it a little more heres what I think about it.
Subsidised golf courses are different to a public park because you don't pay to be a member to use the park. The taxpayers money that goes into the park is free for all to use as it should be. But the municipal golf course isn't free for all to use it goes to make the membership sub cheaper for a certain few to enjoy. That smacks a bit to me. Am I missing something?

Where does that leave the likes of many swimming pools for example? Built by public money. But free to no one. You pay per use, or pay a membership fee. Revenue to the local council.

m r c

Sandwlch wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

I found out about subsidised golf courses on this site today. After thinking about it a little more heres what I think about it.
Subsidised golf courses are different to a public park because you don't pay to be a member to use the park. The taxpayers money that goes into the park is free for all to use as it should be. But the municipal golf course isn't free for all to use it goes to make the membership sub cheaper for a certain few to enjoy. That smacks a bit to me. Am I missing something?

Where does that leave the likes of many swimming pools for example? Built by public money. But free to no one. You pay per use, or pay a membership fee. Revenue to the local council.

Ok fair point sandwlch, but sometimes just giving a comparison isn't a proper defence though.
How do you think it would go down nowadays if a county council or the minister for sport decided to subsidise a private golf course because the membership had fallen off to avoid it closing. I imagine there would be very little support for it outside of the club membership.
I use a club whose membership has fallen off as an example because it's not a course that has to be built from scratch etc. Neither does any existing course publicly funded at the moment. I have previously said that I don't agree with the Nama support either.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

I found out about subsidised golf courses on this site today. After thinking about it a little more heres what I think about it.
Subsidised golf courses are different to a public park because you don't pay to be a member to use the park. The taxpayers money that goes into the park is free for all to use as it should be. But the municipal golf course isn't free for all to use it goes to make the membership sub cheaper for a certain few to enjoy. That smacks a bit to me. Am I missing something?

Its not free for all, but its cheaper for all.
Its subsidised, not free.

That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised.

Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?

Finally, NAMA isnt support...its a way to try and regain some value. NAMA isnt supporting the club, its supporting the thing it now owns.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not free for all, but its cheaper for all.
Its subsidised, not free.

That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised.

Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?

Finally, NAMA isnt support...its a way to try and regain some value. NAMA isnt supporting the club, its supporting the thing it now owns.

Greebo - what does "NAMA isn't supporting the club" mean. I think it is very supportive IMO.

m r c

GreeBo wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

I found out about subsidised golf courses on this site today. After thinking about it a little more heres what I think about it.
Subsidised golf courses are different to a public park because you don't pay to be a member to use the park. The taxpayers money that goes into the park is free for all to use as it should be. But the municipal golf course isn't free for all to use it goes to make the membership sub cheaper for a certain few to enjoy. That smacks a bit to me. Am I missing something?

Its not free for all, but its cheaper for all.
Its subsidised, not free.

That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised.

Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?

Finally, NAMA isnt support...its a way to try and regain some value. NAMA isnt supporting the club, its supporting the thing it now owns.

Sorry my post does read a bit arkward, by "free" and "park" I was talking about park amenities or forest parks and the like, not golf courses.

"That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised."

Your paragraph speaks to the point I'm making in a way I haven't been able to.
It's worthwhile to subsidise healthcare in my opinion, but not golf in these times and maybe not ever the way I've come to see it. Why should anyone's hobby be part funded? Someone else compared swimming earlier, but what if your hobby is sailing, fishing, shooting or even drinking alcohol.


If you want to do your hobbies, get together with like minded people and pay for it like everyone else.

If you can't afford it then don't that's life.

m r c

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not free for all, but its cheaper for all.
Its subsidised, not free.

That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised.

Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?

Finally, NAMA isnt support...its a way to try and regain some value. NAMA isnt supporting the club, its supporting the thing it now owns.

Greebo - what does "NAMA isn't supporting the club" mean. I think it is very supportive IMO.

The idea of Nama is to regain as much of the value as possible. If that means not letting golf clubs return to farmland because in the longer term they hold a better future return as golf courses Nama maintains "support" to maximise the return to the state.
That's the idea anyway.

FixdePitchmark

m r c wrote: »

Sorry my post does read a bit arkward, by "free" and "park" I was talking about park amenities or forest parks and the like, not golf courses.

"That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised."

Your paragraph speaks to the point I'm making in a way I haven't been able to.
It's worthwhile to subsidise healthcare in my opinion, but not golf in these times and maybe not ever the way I've come to see it. Why should anyone's hobby be part funded? Someone else compared swimming earlier, but what if your hobby is sailing, fishing, shooting or even drinking alcohol.


If you want to do your hobbies, get together with like minded people and pay for it like everyone else.

If you can't afford it then don't that's life.

M r c. That is how all sport in Ireland is run , it is subsidised.GAA, IAA, GUI, all. By means of Tax exemption, lotto, charity. That is so right and of great vision.

Some clubs ran with the whole Celtic Tiger idea - we as Irish people are suffering as a result. I don't think that they are the people to lecture how to run public facilities. The public facilities existed before them and will into the future, without them.

If you want a society where you pay into the parks, run with it, but can't see Irish people fall for that.

Dublin (Urban) has a population of 1,110,000 people. There was a tax settlements in Ireland this year of over 1.5 million euro.

There will be no parks or golf courses closing in Dublin.

m r c

"Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?"


I'm asking in a roundabout way why now that the public courses are up and running(all the expensive stuff done) should there be ongoing government support to the club when all its now doing is making it cheaper per year for members.

So why not get an allowance in every club in Ireland to make all subs cheaper?

^ I wouldn't agree with that either btw

m r c

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

Sorry my post does read a bit arkward, by "free" and "park" I was talking about park amenities or forest parks and the like, not golf courses.

"That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised."

Your paragraph speaks to the point I'm making in a way I haven't been able to.
It's worthwhile to subsidise healthcare in my opinion, but not golf in these times and maybe not ever the way I've come to see it. Why should anyone's hobby be part funded? Someone else compared swimming earlier, but what if your hobby is sailing, fishing, shooting or even drinking alcohol.


If you want to do your hobbies, get together with like minded people and pay for it like everyone else.

If you can't afford it then don't that's life.

M r c. That is how all sport in Ireland is run , it is subsidised.GAA, IAA, GUI, all. By means of Tax exemption, lotto, charity. That is so right and of great vision.

Some clubs ran with the whole Celtic Tiger idea - we as Irish people are suffering as a result. I don't think that they are the people to lecture how to run public facilities. The public facilities existed before them and will into the future, without them.

If you want a society where you pay into the parks, run with it, but can't see Irish people fall for that.

Dublin (Urban) has a population of 1,110,000 people. There was a tax settlements in Ireland this year of over 1.5 million euro.

There will be no parks or golf courses closing in Dublin.

Hi fixed, I get the idea of a tax exemption and I also think its right.

Im not arguing for a pay into parks society that would be dumb IMO I agree with you on that too.

I also agree with the idea of Nama and the like clubs not lecturing the ones that aren't in bother now. But I'm not speaking on their behalf, I'm not from high society or anything. I'm new to golf after playing rugby for a few years. Not for social standing btw because I'm a big **** and could take knocks :-)

My posting on this topic comes because I had no idea this kind of support ever went on. I had always thought that any sporting club went for public funding down the lotto route or the govt grant route and only for capital works(facility or grounds improvements and the like) and all other money came from subs or fundraising. I think its outrageous that public money would leave my sub cheaper last year, this year and next year.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

"Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?"


I'm asking in a roundabout way why now that the public courses are up and running(all the expensive stuff done) should there be ongoing government support to the club when all its now doing is making it cheaper per year for members.

So why not get an allowance in every club in Ireland to make all subs cheaper?

^ I wouldn't agree with that either btw

Because the clubs receiving the subsidy are Public Courses and the others are private? You cant compare public to private.
These public courses are cheaper to allow the general public to join/play.
The reason they are cheaper is because they are subsidised....private clubs dont come into it....I honestly dont understand why you keep comparing public to private....its completely different.

Public *anything* is cheaper than the corresponding private version because the public one is part paid for by taxes.

I think you are confusing public, private and NAMA to be honest.

Public = Cheaper because its subsidised.
NAMA = Cheaper because they are trying to keep them as a going concern and dont have cash flow problems (as its essentially the government)
Private = More expensive as their only income is what they generate themselves.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

Sorry my post does read a bit arkward, by "free" and "park" I was talking about park amenities or forest parks and the like, not golf courses.

"That said, no more than the HSE we shouldnt just ignore them if they are being mismanaged. However they shouldnt have to be profit making either, as clearly this would defeat the point of being subsidised."

Your paragraph speaks to the point I'm making in a way I haven't been able to.
It's worthwhile to subsidise healthcare in my opinion, but not golf in these times and maybe not ever the way I've come to see it. Why should anyone's hobby be part funded? Someone else compared swimming earlier, but what if your hobby is sailing, fishing, shooting or even drinking alcohol.


If you want to do your hobbies, get together with like minded people and pay for it like everyone else.

If you can't afford it then don't that's life.

Public golf courses, pools, parks, skate parks etc are all public amenities.
If only people who could afford things got access to them the country (and world) would be a pretty sorry place.
How about applying your last sentence to social housing, welfare and healthcare? If you cant afford it, then tough? Im guessing not.
Well social amenities are the exact same thing, you cant have a society thats so divided and expect it to function. Youd have riots inside a week if public amenities were taken away, it would also be a pretty sh1tty place to live.

m r c

GreeBo wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

"Also I dont understand your question regarding a minister subsidising a private club...what point are you trying to make?"


I'm asking in a roundabout way why now that the public courses are up and running(all the expensive stuff done) should there be ongoing government support to the club when all its now doing is making it cheaper per year for members.

So why not get an allowance in every club in Ireland to make all subs cheaper?

^ I wouldn't agree with that either btw

Because the clubs receiving the subsidy are Public Courses and the others are private? You cant compare public to private.
These public courses are cheaper to allow the general public to join/play.
The reason they are cheaper is because they are subsidised....private clubs dont come into it....I honestly dont understand why you keep comparing public to private....its completely different.

Public *anything* is cheaper than the corresponding private version because the public one is part paid for by taxes.

I think you are confusing public, private and NAMA to be honest.

Public = Cheaper because its subsidised.
NAMA = Cheaper because they are trying to keep them as a going concern and dont have cash flow problems (as its essentially the government)
Private = More expensive as their only income is what they generate themselves.

Again im crap at making points on the Internet.

I understand all of that.

But before today I didn't know there was such thing in Ireland as a public golf course.

I don't think they should continue to be funded.

They should be given to the members and ran privately.

I don't think state funds should go into public golf anymore and I don't think too many people of the general public know that there are such things as public golf courses and if they did i think they wouldn't agree with them. And I would make an exception for Nama golf as they are different animals for reasons already stated.

FixdePitchmark

m r c wrote: »

Again im crap at making points on the Internet.

I understand all of that.

But before today I didn't know there was such thing in Ireland as a public golf course.

I don't think they should continue to be funded.

They should be given to the members and ran privately.

I don't think state funds should go into public golf anymore and I don't think too many people of the general public know that there are such things as public golf courses and if they did i think they wouldn't agree with them. And I would make an exception for Nama golf as they are different animals for reasons already stated.

Mr C.

And do you know that Croke Park re-development got 100 mil of public money

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

Again im crap at making points on the Internet.

I understand all of that.

But before today I didn't know there was such thing in Ireland as a public golf course.

I don't think they should continue to be funded.

They should be given to the members and ran privately.

I don't think state funds should go into public golf anymore and I don't think too many people of the general public know that there are such things as public golf courses and if they did i think they wouldn't agree with them. And I would make an exception for Nama golf as they are different animals for reasons already stated.

So what makes public golf courses any different than public parks, swimming pools, gyms, tennis courts, etc, etc?
Do you think that there should be no public amenities in Ireland?

Im assuming you realise that if they went private they would cease to exist as they are currently loss making? Same for all public amenities....thats the whole reason they are funded...to allow the general public access to them...

m r c

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

m r c wrote: »

Again im crap at making points on the Internet.

I understand all of that.

But before today I didn't know there was such thing in Ireland as a public golf course.

I don't think they should continue to be funded.

They should be given to the members and ran privately.

I don't think state funds should go into public golf anymore and I don't think too many people of the general public know that there are such things as public golf courses and if they did i think they wouldn't agree with them. And I would make an exception for Nama golf as they are different animals for reasons already stated.

Mr C.

And do you know that Croke Park re-development got 100 mil of public money

"Mr C" ha you are closing in on me :-)

I'll have to take it up again tomorrow I've a comp to win in the morning and the nerves have me awake at 03.00 :-o

I'm the kind would prefer these exchanges in person, pm me and I'll tell you why you are wrong on the 9th someday :-)

golfwallah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Do you think the tax exemption for golf courses should be removed ? This could help pay for public services, close inefficient private courses. More people would use the public facility and this would result in loss making public facilities becoming profitable.

It just looks like, people with private interests, are trying to close public facilities for the benifit of private indivduals. Seems like a rerun of history.

On a point of clarification, tax exemption doesn’t apply to all golf courses. Some are privately owned, run for profit and don’t qualify.

Member clubs, on the other hand, are not run for profit, but as community based sporting bodies.

Tax exemption does apply to golf clubs as sporting bodies, provided they satisfy the criteria for tax exemption. But there are lots of such bodies (“established for and existing for the sole purpose of promoting athletic or amateur games or sports”) – for details click list from revenue.ie.

And these clubs (including member owned golf clubs) do not have tax exemption for non-sport related activities (e.g. bar trading is subject to VAT), so in that regard both public and member owned courses are treated equally.

As regards removal of the exemption, no I don’t think this is a practicable proposition, mainly because of the widespread legislation changes required, taxation complications (e.g. to qualify for tax exemption, member owned courses cannot be sold for the profit of members but have to be sold to another sports organisation) and political acceptability.

But I think there is some merit in an idea, reported on Sky News, that is currently being floated in the UK. This could go some way towards solving the problems of excess golf capacity, the need for affordable golf and additional social responsibility. The proposal is that private sporting clubs should be obliged to give back more to the community in return for tax exemption, e.g. in the form of cheaper green fees and membership to those, who can’t afford them (i.e. social welfare recipients and/or others). Quite how this would work, I’m not sure, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless.

As regards, closing inefficient private courses, unless protected by Nama, that already happens automatically when they become insolvent and can’t borrow their way out any more. It doesn’t happen to loss making council courses because councils, up to now, have been able to borrow revenue shortfalls (although this ability is now being more restricted by government).

So, in closing, it boils down to whom you’d trust more to spend your money – an inefficient council or yourself as a member of a community based members’ club that has to balance its books to survive.:)

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah wrote: »

On a point of clarification, tax exemption doesn’t apply to all golf courses. Some are privately owned, run for profit and don’t qualify.

Member clubs, on the other hand, are not run for profit, but as community based sporting bodies.

Tax exemption does apply to golf clubs as sporting bodies, provided they satisfy the criteria for tax exemption. But there are lots of such bodies (“established for and existing for the sole purpose of promoting athletic or amateur games or sports”) – for details click list from revenue.ie.

And these clubs (including member owned golf clubs) do not have tax exemption for non-sport related activities (e.g. bar trading is subject to VAT), so in that regard both public and member owned courses are treated equally.

As regards removal of the exemption, no I don’t think this is a practicable proposition, mainly because of the widespread legislation changes required, taxation complications (e.g. to qualify for tax exemption, member owned courses cannot be sold for the profit of members but have to be sold to another sports organisation) and political acceptability.

But I think there is some merit in an idea, reported on Sky News, that is currently being floated in the UK. This could go some way towards solving the problems of excess golf capacity, the need for affordable golf and additional social responsibility. The proposal is that private sporting clubs should be obliged to give back more to the community in return for tax exemption, e.g. in the form of cheaper green fees and membership to those, who can’t afford them (i.e. social welfare recipients and/or others). Quite how this would work, I’m not sure, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless.

As regards, closing inefficient private courses, unless protected by Nama, that already happens automatically when they become insolvent and can’t borrow their way out any more. It doesn’t happen to loss making council courses because councils, up to now, have been able to borrow revenue shortfalls (although this ability is now being more restricted by government).

So, in closing, it boils down to whom you’d trust more to spend your money – an inefficient council or yourself as a member of a community based members’ club that has to balance its books to survive.:)

Great post Golfwallah.

I think council golf courses have done more for the game than member's clubs.

I don't think we will agree on that. But such is life.

golfwallah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Great post Golfwallah.

I think council golf courses have done more for the game than member's clubs.

I don't think we will agree on that. But such is life.

Thanks FDP.

In case it's misunderstood, I have no issue with council golf courses or a reasonable level of subsidy.

I accept your point that they have made a contribution to the game, but let's get this into perspective, there are only 11 I know of out of about 430 registered clubs.

My issue is the inefficient council management as indicated by the massive losses incurred by Fingal County Council ...... don't know about finances in other councils.

markie4

m r c, (and maybe some others)

It hasn't really been made clear what actually happens at these "subsidised" clubs, other than taking money from the tax-payer, so here's my experience.

But first off, let's be clear, it's the course that's subsidised not the club.

I'm a member of Elmgreen, and both the Mens and Ladies golf "clubs" are essentially tenants of the course, who by virtue of paying a portion of their membership fee to the council, their members get playing rights at the course. The extent of those playing rights are a bit more restricted than an average club, hence the lower fees. The only reserved time that the general public do not have equal access to the course is during competition time on Sunday morning, up to approximately 12.30. All other times are equal access for members and the general public.

Of our fees (I pay €450 p/a.), a certain amount is paid directly to the course (so Fingal benefits). Then every single time I play, I pay €10.50 (again to the course, not the club). I could pay €850 for so-called unlimited playing rights, but that's not much use when you can't get out on the course in the middle of the summer, because it's too busy.

Obviously having the club as "tenants" has benefits for the course/Fingal, as there is an annual payment from the club (obviously relative to the number of members), as well as a steady income from members playing the weekly competitions, this probably helps to offset reduced income during quieter times e.g. winter, there is still income generated at the course due to member's competition. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't think having a member's section increases the cost of running the course.

If you would rather not have state funded or subsidised public amenities or even specifically golf courses, that's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking the golf club itself is subsidised

m r c

markie4 wrote: »

m r c, (and maybe some others)

It hasn't really been made clear what actually happens at these "subsidised" clubs, other than taking money from the tax-payer, so here's my experience.

But first off, let's be clear, it's the course that's subsidised not the club.

I'm a member of Elmgreen, and both the Mens and Ladies golf "clubs" are essentially tenants of the course, who by virtue of paying a portion of their membership fee to the council, their members get playing rights at the course. The extent of those playing rights are a bit more restricted than an average club, hence the lower fees. The only reserved time that the general public do not have equal access to the course is during competition time on Sunday morning, up to approximately 12.30. All other times are equal access for members and the general public.

Of our fees (I pay €450 p/a.), a certain amount is paid directly to the course (so Fingal benefits). Then every single time I play, I pay €10.50 (again to the course, not the club). I could pay €850 for so-called unlimited playing rights, but that's not much use when you can't get out on the course in the middle of the summer, because it's too busy.

Obviously having the club as "tenants" has benefits for the course/Fingal, as there is an annual payment from the club (obviously relative to the number of members), as well as a steady income from members playing the weekly competitions, this probably helps to offset reduced income during quieter times e.g. winter, there is still income generated at the course due to member's competition. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't think having a member's section increases the cost of running the course.

If you would rather not have state funded or subsidised public amenities or even specifically golf courses, that's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking the golf club itself is subsidised

You know what markie that does sit a bit easier with me after reading your post. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

Btw guys staying up mad late before a morning tee time is the key to success. 40 points today on 3 hours sleep nice one !!!

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah wrote: »

Thanks FDP.

In case it's misunderstood, I have no issue with council golf courses or a reasonable level of subsidy.

I accept your point that they have made a contribution to the game, but let's get this into perspective, there are only 11 I know of out of about 430 registered clubs.

My issue is the inefficient council management as indicated by the massive losses incurred by Fingal County Council ...... don't know about finances in other councils.

It just highlights the poor showing by the GUI and clubs, not once , and I'm around golf courses and sport a bit, have I seen anything, by anyone to promote golf. Say, a pro in schools or in the local park or on tv or radio. They just seem light years behind GAA, football, rugby.

At the same time, in my area 100s upon 100s of kids play on the pitch and putt course and end up on a real public golf course. It is a real lost opportunity for golf . But it is easy to talk. It is the doing is the problem.

golfwallah

markie4 wrote: »

m r c, (and maybe some others)

It hasn't really been made clear what actually happens at these "subsidised" clubs, other than taking money from the tax-payer, so here's my experience.

But first off, let's be clear, it's the course that's subsidised not the club.

I'm a member of Elmgreen, and both the Mens and Ladies golf "clubs" are essentially tenants of the course, who by virtue of paying a portion of their membership fee to the council, their members get playing rights at the course. The extent of those playing rights are a bit more restricted than an average club, hence the lower fees. The only reserved time that the general public do not have equal access to the course is during competition time on Sunday morning, up to approximately 12.30. All other times are equal access for members and the general public.

Of our fees (I pay €450 p/a.), a certain amount is paid directly to the course (so Fingal benefits). Then every single time I play, I pay €10.50 (again to the course, not the club). I could pay €850 for so-called unlimited playing rights, but that's not much use when you can't get out on the course in the middle of the summer, because it's too busy.

Obviously having the club as "tenants" has benefits for the course/Fingal, as there is an annual payment from the club (obviously relative to the number of members), as well as a steady income from members playing the weekly competitions, this probably helps to offset reduced income during quieter times e.g. winter, there is still income generated at the course due to member's competition. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't think having a member's section increases the cost of running the course.

If you would rather not have state funded or subsidised public amenities or even specifically golf courses, that's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking the golf club itself is subsidised

Good post .... I couldn’t agree more – you’re absolutely right! Of course it’s not the club’s fault that losses are being subsidised – clubs and members are paying market based rates, bearing in mind the restrictions placed on their playing rights, as you have described.

Most people (including myself until relatively recently) don’t make the connection between subsidising losses on public golf courses and the playing rights available.

But there is, indeed, a connection and responsibility for the subsidies has to lie somewhere – not with the individual members or the club but with the council, represented in turn by the county manager and elected councillors.

It is difficult to get this message across – ask Minister Phil Hogan or any of his predecessors or any of the 49% who haven’t paid the Household Charge in Fingal – but the message is slowly being communicated ..... the hard way.

So, what are the answers – how can councils “balance the books”, when:

• Government grants have been reduced (10% or €2.2m for Fingal County Council)

• They can’t increase their borrowings (council debt was about €780m out of total government borrowings of about €148 Billion at end 2010 and we’re committed to reducing this debt)

• They’ve already made savings under the Croke Park Agreement – but this is still not enough.

• They can’t lay off staff or reduce pay under the Croke Park Agreement

• They could cut services to the public, such as street lighting or funding of sports facilities, as already publicly announced – don’t think that would be too popular either.

• They could increase rates on businesses – resulting in yet more job losses, etc.

• They could collect the outstanding 51% of Household Charges by year end – hasn’t worked so far.

• Or they could run down all services gradually ..... but will this produce the €2.2m shortfall required over the 4½ months left this year?


Not any easy one, but councils are faced with urgent action over the next few months – and, maybe just maybe, public golf courses will escape unscathed.

What do you think?

The_Architect

I believe we need more good quality "municipal" golf that is self-sustaining.

Don't forget that some of the best golf courses in the world are local authority owned, especially in Scotland... St. Andrews, Carnoustie, North Berwick, Montrose etc...

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah wrote: »

Good post .... I couldn’t agree more – you’re absolutely right! Of course it’s not the club’s fault that losses are being subsidised – clubs and members are paying market based rates, bearing in mind the restrictions placed on their playing rights, as you have described.

Most people (including myself until relatively recently) don’t make the connection between subsidising losses on public golf courses and the playing rights available.

But there is, indeed, a connection and responsibility for the subsidies has to lie somewhere – not with the individual members or the club but with the council, represented in turn by the county manager and elected councillors.

It is difficult to get this message across – ask Minister Phil Hogan or any of his predecessors or any of the 49% who haven’t paid the Household Charge in Fingal – but the message is slowly being communicated ..... the hard way.

So, what are the answers – how can councils “balance the books”, when:

• Government grants have been reduced (10% or €2.2m for Fingal County Council)

• They can’t increase their borrowings (council debt was about €780m out of total government borrowings of about €148 Billion at end 2010 and we’re committed to reducing this debt)

• They’ve already made savings under the Croke Park Agreement – but this is still not enough.

• They can’t lay off staff or reduce pay under the Croke Park Agreement

• They could cut services to the public, such as street lighting or funding of sports facilities, as already publicly announced – don’t think that would be too popular either.

• They could increase rates on businesses – resulting in yet more job losses, etc.

• They could collect the outstanding 51% of Household Charges by year end – hasn’t worked so far.

• Or they could run down all services gradually ..... but will this produce the €2.2m shortfall required over the 4½ months left this year?


Not any easy one, but councils are faced with urgent action over the next few months – and, maybe just maybe, public golf courses will escape unscathed.

What do you think?

How much would the remaing Household charge generate ?

What is going on in Fingal, that ony 49 % have paid it ? that seems very low.

mike12

Public course were a necessity as joining a private golf course or paying green fees in Dublin was just not affordable up until the recession. With joining fees of 5000 plus and green fees of over 40 euros there would have been no place for the average member of the public to start playing golf.
I know you have Swords open and Deer park but they were not open for membership and that was what Elm Green and Corballis provided.
I'd be surprised if Corballis is running at a loss now it may have been the upgrade that accounted for a big portion of the loss but they seem busy any time i play.
I imagine that they are probably the only courses that have increased membership in the Dublin area in the last couple of years.

markie4

Golfwallah,
To be honest I don’t have any useful answers to your questions, does that qualify me as a politician?

I would say that if places like Elmgreen, Corballis and corporation P&P courses like St Annes Park & Edenmore didn’t exist, I would possibly not be playing golf today. I’m sure the same goes for thousands of members in and around Dublin. If you examine the membership in your club, how many of them got a start in golf/P&P from playing on a public course of some sort? I know of at least 50 people from Elmgreen in perhaps just the last 2 years that have “progressed” (as some would see it) to other clubs. So golf clubs have also benefited from this subsidy, as the work of introducing potential members to the game, learning the basics, has often happened at public courses, as the barriers to participation are lower.

Now obviously you beg the question of whether in these straightened times, these subsidies should continue? I’m honestly not sure.

Based on the number of young people I see taking part in either P&P or golf in Elmgreen, there is definitely an interest in playing the sport. As Fixed said, I’m not sure they’d be catered for in clubs if a public facility wasn’t available to get people started. Golf clubs really aren’t the most welcoming of places to young people who don’t already have a connection to them and they’d never have a chance to become golfers.

Whether councils should be subsidising any sport is a valid question….. Personally I think it’s a good thing that the general population are assisted in taking part in any sport and activity that gives people a chance to be active, healthy and have social interaction etc., there’s plenty of evidence out there to the financial benefit of a society of investing in sports and social facilities on a euro for euro basis.
If council pitches etc. are subsidised for GAA/rugby/soccer, then why not golf courses also?

Mike12,
Elmgreen’s membership, afaik is actually down over the last couple of years. Presumably for the same reasons as other courses, e.g. changed circumstances etc. but also due to the decreased costs of membership of other clubs.

The course itself is generally very busy (at least during the summer), so I’d be curious to see figures for the more recent years not just up to 2009, as running costs of €1.3M p/a (as quoted in Cllr. Kieran Dennison’s website) seems very high.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

How much would the remaing Household charge generate ?

What is going on in Fingal, that ony 49 % have paid it ? that seems very low.

Lets try to keep this thread on topic please guys.
Subsidised Golf Courses

brick tamland

I know Corballis ( and possibly others) do discounts for the unwaged, I think its a tenner for them so I suppose it is providing a service for the area.